Prime gap records

[MJansen]

Hi Seth, (it is Seth right?)

I tested the gap enrty page with another batch, and it ran fine (although a bit long ... ;-)

Some remarks:
1. if I have more than one day of gaps to enter, I will have to add them in daily batches. Since there are a lot of gaps (1000+ since januari 1st 2020) that would not be very convenient.
2. I do like your set up of day selection though. is there a solution both ways can be supported? So adding a batch with a data line including date_of_gap_found and the second option is selecting a date?
3. Bigger gaps take some time to verify, so around 1000 gaps will take some serious time to verify, would that be a problem (are the resources and especially the server capacity guaranteed?)
4. The script noticed one gap was not an improvement (77986 17.028162 11413*4657#/30030 - 52636), a bigger merit had been found for that gap already and the script did correctly skip that gap from the verification (just so you know!)

All in all, pretty nice steps forward!
Kind regards
Michiel Jansen


(36160, '2167345*1559#/210-20134', 'Verified! (4.1s)')
(36444, '2153219*1567#/210-24126', 'Verified! (3.9s)')
(39724, '2120297*1571#/210-16396', 'Verified! (4.5s)')
(52688, '1098161*2557#/210-30638', 'Verified! (19.4s)')
(59010, '1108747*2557#/210-30724', 'Verified! (22.4s)')
(59688, '1115003*2557#/210-19542', 'Verified! (23.9s)')
(57092, '1106605*2591#/210-26538', 'Verified! (23.5s)')
(79420, '111895*4157#/2310-39778', 'Verified! (106.4s)')
(80664, '111025*4159#/2310-62446', 'Verified! (112.1s)')
(97324, '11225*6529#/30030-42358', 'Verified! (323.0s)')
(92022, '11429*4801#/30030-48674', 'Verified! (150.5s)')
(114294, '11381*4987#/30030-61496', 'Verified! (219.0s)')
(78752, '11377*5003#/30030-21974', 'Verified! (143.1s)')
(83152, '11381*4517#/30030-46446', 'Verified! (118.0s)')
(86508, '110905*4153#/2310-26366', 'Verified! (111.5s)')
(94954, '109471*4139#/2310-50124', 'Verified! (107.3s)')

[SethTro]

Originally Posted by MJansen

Hi Seth, (it is Seth right?)

I tested the gap enrty page with another batch, and it ran fine (although a bit long ... ;-)

Some remarks:
1. if I have more than one day of gaps to enter, I will have to add them in daily batches. Since there are a lot of gaps (1000+ since januari 1st 2020) that would not be very convenient.
2. I do like your set up of day selection though. is there a solution both ways can be supported? So adding a batch with a data line including date_of_gap_found and the second option is selecting a date?
3. Bigger gaps take some time to verify, so around 1000 gaps will take some serious time to verify, would that be a problem (are the resources and especially the server capacity guaranteed?)
4. The script noticed one gap was not an improvement (77986 17.028162 11413*4657#/30030 - 52636), a bigger merit had been found for that gap already and the script did correctly skip that gap from the verification (just so you know!)

All in all, pretty nice steps forward!
Kind regards
Michiel Jansen

It is Seth,

1. I think I have a limit somewhere of 30, I'm happy to bulk process all of your entries.
2. I'm not sure what "both ways" is, I'm happy to parse out the date from a csv line (just give me an example format).
3. This is running on my home PC but I'll upload it to Google Cloud Platform at some point. I'm not sure what to do about slowness, but let's deal with that at that time. (maybe the solution is to only test a random fraction of the inner numbers for some trusted uploaders).
4. There's currently an issue where the database's merit is rounded so I add 0.005 to it before comparing with input merit, so it's possible your record was just a small improvement (and hit this bug). I'll add a todo to handle this better (maybe parsing the string value for all records?)

[mart_r]

Nice work!

Though I'm not currently looking for the "simple" prime gaps, I'm looking forward to do so again in the near future.

[MJansen]

I can PM the improved gaps after august 12th 2019. Will be tomorrow evening (off for bed now)
With both ways, I mean your current batch processing option and another OR on the web page that has a date in the data-line (e.g. Gap DateFound Merit6 GapStart like: 36160 8-3-2020 23.746468 2167345*1559#/210 - 20134)
I don't think the verifying is too slow, just when processing many gaps it might be a strain on resources and they have to be available otherwise it will be frustrating. Choices are to test all gaps and accept slowness (I personally will), or test a few and give out C?? ratings for the rest, or trust the people that have proven to deliver correct results in the past (Tom did not trust anyone, he liked to verify every result if possible ;-)
regarding the rounding, why not use 6 digits and round from there? Chance of incorrect merit values decreases significantly!

Kind regards
Michiel Jansen

Originally Posted by SethTro

It is Seth,

1. I think I have a limit somewhere of 30, I'm happy to bulk process all of your entries.
2. I'm not sure what "both ways" is, I'm happy to parse out the date from a csv line (just give me an example format).
3. This is running on my home PC but I'll upload it to Google Cloud Platform at some point. I'm not sure what to do about slowness, but let's deal with that at that time. (maybe the solution is to only test a random fraction of the inner numbers for some trusted uploaders).
4. There's currently an issue where the database's merit is rounded so I add 0.005 to it before comparing with input merit, so it's possible your record was just a small improvement (and hit this bug). I'll add a todo to handle this better (maybe parsing the string value for all records?)

[SethTro]

I proposed some submitted records to the main github.
https://github.com/primegap-list-pro...ap-list/pull/5

If it gets accepted I'll try to automate that step too.

[MJansen]

That would be great. As I said earlier, I am new to GitHub, can you show a view / webpage on github where the record gaps are shown?

Kind regards
Michiel

Originally Posted by SethTro

I proposed some submitted records to the main github.
https://github.com/primegap-list-pro...ap-list/pull/5

If it gets accepted I'll try to automate that step too.

[SethTro]

Originally Posted by MJansen

That would be great. As I said earlier, I am new to GitHub, can you show a view / webpage on github where the record gaps are shown?

Kind regards
Michiel

This is the current master list
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pr...er/allgaps.sql

I've proposed some changes (a pull request) which will make these changes to this, but it's waiting for another person (Graham in this case) to review

Graham also wrote a nice frontend to view the data in some interesting ways.
https://primegap-list-project.github.io/lists/
For example
Top merit: https://primegap-list-project.github...gaps-by-merit/
Top discoverers: https://primegap-list-project.github...p-discoverers/

[MJansen]

Thanks, appreciated!

PS how are the 2500 updates going? I noticed you were adding the gaps in batches to your SQL site, but verifying seems a lengthy process? I am adding the daily improvements to the website as you probably have noticed.

Kind regards
Michiel

Originally Posted by SethTro

This is the current master list
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pr...er/allgaps.sql

I've proposed some changes (a pull request) which will make these changes to this, but it's waiting for another person (Graham in this case) to review

Graham also wrote a nice frontend to view the data in some interesting ways.
https://primegap-list-project.github.io/lists/
For example
Top merit: https://primegap-list-project.github...gaps-by-merit/
Top discoverers: https://primegap-list-project.github...p-discoverers/

[SethTro]

Originally Posted by MJansen

Thanks, appreciated!

PS how are the 2500 updates going? I noticed you were adding the gaps in batches to your SQL site, but verifying seems a lengthy process? I am adding the daily improvements to the website as you probably have noticed.

Kind regards
Michiel

It's been slow work. I should really throw more than one core at it but I've been loathed to do that. I'm still waiting on a gmp commit that should speed it up ~50%.

Hopefully after these are in the daily updates only take an hour or so.

[SethTro]

@robert44444uk @MJansen

Graham gave me the power to commit records to the official GitHub repository (i have currently been submitting them to my personal copy), I asked a week ago about frequency of submitting records and hey said I should hash it out with Rob.

I proposals the primegaps website should start pushes batches of records directly to the repository with no review (AKA trust me and my code)
Pros:

• I'm a reasonable person
• Code is open source and simple to verify.
• Even if something went wrong there's a nice audit trail of what went wrong

An alternative would be that the primegaps website creates Pull Requests (like this one) and I/Rob/Graham hand review them before they are made official. This adds human eye in the process to make sure nothing looks weird, but I feel it's going to be overly burdensome and substantially slow down the time for reporting till they are part of the official record (we can imagine fully automating reporting form Pgsurround.pl in the future if we go with proposal 1)

What I'm asking for.
1. A yes or no if both of you are okay if I start submitting records I hand review to the repository
2. A yes or no if both of you are okay with me changing the website to automatically submit records after verification.

[robert44444uk]

Originally Posted by SethTro

@robert44444uk @MJansen

Graham gave me the power to commit records to the official GitHub repository (i have currently been submitting them to my personal copy), I asked a week ago about frequency of submitting records and hey said I should hash it out with Rob.

I proposals the primegaps website should start pushes batches of records directly to the repository with no review (AKA trust me and my code)
Pros:

• I'm a reasonable person
• Code is open source and simple to verify.
• Even if something went wrong there's a nice audit trail of what went wrong

An alternative would be that the primegaps website creates Pull Requests (like this one) and I/Rob/Graham hand review them before they are made official. This adds human eye in the process to make sure nothing looks weird, but I feel it's going to be overly burdensome and substantially slow down the time for reporting till they are part of the official record (we can imagine fully automating reporting form Pgsurround.pl in the future if we go with proposal 1)

What I'm asking for.
1. A yes or no if both of you are okay if I start submitting records I hand review to the repository
2. A yes or no if both of you are okay with me changing the website to automatically submit records after verification.

Sorry for my absence from the scene. Up to my eyes with a variety of things.

I'm really happy to say yes to both. I have time to find records, but no real time (or skills) to get involved with the GitHub end of things.